🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation requires clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the running of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,